But in the realm of source ports, I've never bothered to check. At least with the likes of GlBoom+ or GZDoom, it's more than enough to maintain a steady 60FPS the framerate's uncapped. Earthquake effects tend to produce like 5-6 screen tears in the same frame, if I forget to turn VSync on.

I don't know why but for some reason I came into this thread thinking it was a discussion about how many different First Person Shooters have features that Doom itself could easily emulate with some modding or something. Like "How many shooters do you get in Doom"

Unless I try a source port, but I never bothered to check. I recently did a test in Quake 3 Arena to see how low can my FPS be and still be bearable for my taste. I came to a conlusion that 40 is a minimum for single-player with 60 being optimal. For multiplayer it depends also on physics in addition to visuals so in Quake's case I try to have constant 125.

Of course it depends on a game's design. Doom's 35 FPS still looks great to me, but in a modern shooter game it wouldn't be enough.

40oz said:I don't know why but for some reason I came into this thread thinking it was a discussion about how many different First Person Shooters have features that Doom itself could easily emulate with some modding or something.

Well people can actually tell the difference of more than 60fps. Not sure where the myth started that we have such low perception.

The reason most people won't tell the difference above 60fps is because their monitor refresh rate is capped at 60hz. 120hz monitors are becoming the new thing, so 120 fps becoming more and more desirable.

Depends which port I'm using, which map I'm playing and whether vsync is on or not. It usually is so 60fps is normal for me.

Rather than just as "how many fps do you get" a better comparison would be to eliminate as many differences as possible e.g. how many fps do you get when playing wadname.wad at coordinates x,y, facing direction x in MAPXY.